Why I picked it up: Culture exists in civic ecosystems, and funding is always a critical need. This seemed like something I needed to check out.

What it covers: Focuses on how culture is financed in 16 cities around the world. It examines government support (both direct and indirect, such as tax breaks and incentives) and private funding. Takes into consideration how it varies geographically, and thus culturally. Case studies of the 16 cities also provided (in the United States, New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles).

Read or skip? There were no surprises here. We all already know that government support in places like Paris are at a totally different scale than in the US. While there was more nuance than I knew, it didn't feel crucial for what I do … which rates it a skip for most of us. But if you are deep in the weeds of cultural policy and public financing of culture, then yes, this is a good reference for you.

Why I picked it up: Families with young children, as well as school groups, are a key audience for museums. And we all know that museums canprovide children with meaningful experiences …. experiences that are cherished, and sometimes change lives in obvious and not-so-obvious ways. But we meaningfullyreach too few children, a social justice issue that museums have not truly reckoned with. So of course I picked this up.

What you need to know: The Annie E. Casey Foundation has been working on this annual "by the numbers" on child wellbeing since 1990; this 2017 book uses the most recent data (2015) from the US Census Bureau, the CDC, the US Department of Education, and other sources.​The Data Book examines child wellbeing across four factors, noting if there has been progress (or regression) over the past five years (so, since 2010).

Economic: Progress! There are fewer children in poverty … but one in five are still from impoverished households.

Education: Mixed. Graduation rates are improving, but other measures (e.g. school proficiency) are lagging.

Health: Progress! There has been overall improvement, particularly in health insurance coverage thanks to Obamacare.

Family and community: Mixed. Teen pregnancy rates are declining, but there are increasing numbers of children in single-parent households, which tend to be lower income with fewer resources and more stressors.

Other findings:

Overall, whites and Asian American children are doing much better than other children of color.

They examined wellbeing by states and regionally, finding that New England states overall have highest rates of child wellbeing; states in the South, Southwest, and Appalachia are not doing as well. These findings make sense given those regions have sharply different levels of educational attainment, with resulting economic outcomes that affect child wellbeing.

Implications for museums: While this report doesn't directly mention museums, we have to be mindful that its focus is a key audience for all of us. In particular:

Any director or staff member of a museum that has children and/or families as a core audience should have familiarity with the report, since this is your core audience. It will give you a better idea of challenges your audience is facing … especially underserved audiences.

In particular, educators should take a look at how their state is doing, and consider programs that might address some of these concerns. And development directors should work closely with education staff to secure funding through new sources. After all, we are capable of creating meaningfully improved outcomes for all children. But we have to reach them to do so.

The website includes a wonderful tool for focusing in on one specific geographic area for a snapshot of child wellbeing. For some lucky states, it can even be refined by zip code. Go to datacenter.kidscount.org to start pulling your community's numbers.

Read or skip? Anyone who wants to serve allchildren in their community should skim through the report, check out page 53 for their state's ranking, and consider going to datacenter.kidscount.org to create more refined reports. They make it easy.

Why I picked it up: In my research, museums excel at affective learning. It is where true meaning-making takes place, and why arts and history museums particularly excel at it. (Science museums seem to do "information processing" better than affective learning, see below.) This article is 13 years old, yet I think the issue they highlight continues to be one of concern.

What you need to know: Researchers at the MIT Media Lab wrote this manifesto out of concern that thinking and learning is increasingly viewed as "information processing," with affective learning being discounted. Yet they are intertwined. On page 253 they note, "While it has always been understood that too much emotion is bad for rational thinking, recent findings suggest that so too is too little emotion -- when basic mechanisms of emotion are missing in the brain, then intelligent functioning is hindered."

What else is in the manifesto: The focus of the manifesto was on that perceived imbalance of affect and cognition (which I agree with). The authors (there are ten!) disagree on the details, but saw this manifesto as a first step "to begin to construct a science of affective learning." I couldn't help but see parallels between their initial argument and the increasing focus on the more cognitive STEM disciplines (sometimes at the expense of the more affective arts and humanities). They both matter, and they both suffer when they are out of balance.

My red flag: The manifesto then goes on to explore different ideas for measuring affect, or feelings, motivations, etc. But mid-way through I grew increasingly troubled as they seemed to look solely at technology, particularly artificial intelligence, for a solution here. While I agree with them that analog methods to date have drawbacks, it still doesn't make sense to me to go all-in in the opposite direction. It seems like an "information processing" approach to affective learning.

Additionally, their discussion didn't take into account the natural environment of the learner. That is, home life, childhood experiences that affect interest, engagement, and motivation, and just the overall affective environment we all live in every day. Instead, they seemed to be focused on more clinical, artificial environments for measurement.

Thus, I would have liked to see more nuanced ideas that built on the best tools out there … which are likely a mix of human, analog, and artificial intelligence. And also ideas that built on a more complex understanding of the individualized affective experiences we have and affective worlds we all inhabit. I hope in the 13 years since this was originally published their individual work has addressed my concerns. My fear is that we haven't made any progress reconciling the two types of learning or assessment.

Implications for museums: I think their assessment of the affective being discounted is accurate, and a contributor to a bit of an identity crisis about the value and impact of museums. We can have outsized affective impact, but does it matter when the broader, societal focus is on "information processing?" I say yes. More than ever. That being said, it would be interesting for museums to consider some of their measurement ideas (such as the Galvactivators, which one researcher has deployed in a museum setting - why not more in the past decade?) in studies that take into account how affective, and complicated, humans really are.

Read or skip? Skip. I had high hopes, and love their overall thesis. But I find their solutions problematic, since they seem to want to turn affect into more information processing.

Rabbit hole opportunity: The manifesto quotes Marvin Minsky, "… when we change what we call our 'emotional states,' we're switching between different ways to think." I may need to check out his book The Emotion Machine.

Why I picked it up: I love the Center for High Impact Philanthropy (CHIP), and what they do. They apply rigorous thinking about how charitable gifts can have the most impact; after all, who wants their gifts wasted? Yet they are not rigid in their thinking about what impact. That is, there is a realization that the world is a complicated place, and that some gifts need to address desperate short-term needs, while others may have long-term consequences that really matter. They are all about what the donor wants to accomplish with a gift.

What is in the report: In a way, the giving guide is a "catalog" for end-of-year giving. It focuses on 14 nonprofits they have identified as making a significant impact in health, poverty, and education, providing a summary of what each nonprofit does, how effective it is, and how you can help the organization. Additionally, they provide a disaster-relief giving guide that I personally found absolutely fascinating and compelling.

Implications for museums: There is one thing that is important to CHIP: evidence of impact. Museums tend to not have the kind of rigorous data that evidence-based donors require. We can't say that a $2 gift can vaccinate a child against measles and rubella. We simply don't work that way.

But that doesn't mean we are not effective or not worthy of funding. Indeed, I can argue that what we do matters greatly. As a field, however, we need to develop our own sets of comprehensive measurements that share how exposing more children and adults to art, history, science, nature, and pretty much everything the world holds makes a difference … and that our methods for engagement are more effective than alternatives.

Read or skip? Philanthropy has changed quite a bit over the past several years, and CHIP is on the forefront of that shift. Thus, directors/CEOs as well as development directors should look at this to see how CHIP, as well as the world of high impact philanthropy, defines and frames effectiveness in terms of philanthropy. How should we reframe our case for support? What evidence do we need to support that case? And how does this enable us to fulfill our missions not only more effectively, but more meaningfully?

This infographic can be found in both the short and long reports of Creative Health.

"At least one third of GP appointments are, in part, due to isolation." - Dr. Jane Povey, GP

Why I picked it up: I'm always looking for any and all research that provides evidence that the arts and culture have positive impacts in people's lives … as well as for communities and society. And I'm a pragmatist about this. Yes, I absolutely believe we should value arts and culture for its own sake, but that doesn't preclude tracking more practical impacts … such as health and wellbeing. One doesn’t preclude the other.

What you need to know: Goodness, this is the most thorough, comprehensive review of what has to be every study out there that provides evidence that arts and culture promote better health and wellbeing. 1,048 footnotes worth, by life stage (from prenatal exposure to death).

In the forward, the report makes three key points that arts and cultural engagement:

support overall well-being;

help meet significant healthcare challenges; and

can save significant healthcare costs.​

​The report also makes the economic case for shifting the healthcare system from one focused on hospital care and illness treatment to one that is more holistic and person-based, which includes lifestyle choices that matter. In particular, it recommends extending the reach of arts and culture to individuals in lower socio-economic households as well as older adults (two segments of the population that have lower levels of engagement). On p. 10 of the short report there is a far-sighted list of ten recommendations for changes in the UK; I'd like to see a similar list coming out of the American medical, health insurance, and cultural fields as well.

Implications for museums: The bottom line is that there is considerable and conclusive evidence that regular participation in arts and culture improves health and wellbeing throughout one's life. This results in longer, healthier lives, greater economic contributions through those lives, and significant healthcare savings. Seems to me that is a pretty powerful case that we can broaden our audiences significantly by attracting them based on their extrinsic motivations for greater health and wellbeing, and then giving them something meaningful to experience as well.

I want to flag the older adults bit. We have a rapidly aging population of older adults, and older adults are the least likely segment of the population to participate in arts and culture according to two national studies I fielded. This report lists the significant outcomes that arts and cultural engagement has for older adults, including:

Social access

Reductions in loneliness

Increased independence

Reduced neuro-cognitive disorders

Increased health and wellbeing

All thus reducing health costs across socio-economic strata

This seems like a no-brainer for museums.

Read or skip? You should read the "short report" to familiarize yourself with what is in the long report. In particular, the infographic in that short report is rather useful (pictured above). As for the full report, only those who are focused on wellness initiatives in their work or are writing a proposal that needs clear evidence of health-related impact need to dive in. For the latter, this is absolutely your go-to resource because they covered everything. Finally, the website has five two-page "policy briefings," that are clearly intended for advocacy. Those can be very useful as well, but do keep in mind this is a UK report, even though it cites studies from around the world.

Why I picked it up: I'm pretty focused on what impact arts and culture has on individuals and communities. So I'll look at any study that examines long-term arts engagement and civic engagement to see if there is any reliable evidence. This new study was only released last week.

What you need to know: Researchers from the University of Lincoln and the University of Kent (UK) wanted to test the hypothesis that arts engagement generates more prosocial cooperation, thus yielding significant societal benefits. They used the Understanding Society sample, which is longitudinal and, crucially, a representative sample of the UK population. With n = 30,476, they can control for a host of sociodemographic factors.

Their questions boiled down to:

1 - Is there a connection between arts engagement and prosocial behavior?2 - Does that connection still exist when sociodemographic and personality variables are controlled? That is, when the capacityfor prosocial behavior and for arts engagement is accounted for.3 - Is this connection distinctive, or are there other things that similarly affect prosocial behavior?4 - Does arts engagement create short-term effects, or is it cumulative?

Their results were pretty definitive.

First, yes, no question. Engagement in the arts was one of the strongest predictors of charitable giving and volunteering even stronger than most socio-demographic variables. And when the socio-demographic variables that also strongly affected prosocial behaviors were controlled for (e.g., education, income), arts engagement was the strongest predictor at all levels. So while low-income individuals may generally have lower capacity to engage in the arts and/or engage in prosocial behavior, those that do engage in the arts still have greater prosocial behavior than those who do not. And while high-income individuals may have greater capacityto engage in the arts and/or prosocial behavior, the same rule holds depending on whether they actually do engage.

The results also suggest that the effect is cumulative. The longer individuals engage with the arts, the more prosocial they became. Or, in other words, one museum visit isn't going to make anyone significantly more prosocial. It takes many visits, over years.

They summed up their conclusions in three points:

1 - Arts have an essential role in prosocial behavior, benefiting society.2 - Evidence indicates that there are significant social and economic gains for investing in the arts.3 - The most effective investments in the arts are likely those that make arts engagement more widely available across the socio-economic spectrum.

Implications for museums: This is a solid study, using a well-respected longitudinal survey, that should be helpful for making a case to both donors and potential community partners that arts organizations, including museums, can deliver significant impact that is far-reaching.

And the research makes sense to me, as the findings are similar to my own about museum-going and civic engagement: museum-goers are more likely to be active in their communities. I'm mindful, however, that we have to be careful about making judgments about those who are not engaged, and be sensitive about capacity to engage. (See my review of American Generosity for my first thinking about this; you'll see me explore it more in the coming weeks on The Data Museum as well.) Additionally, we need to consider why arts engagement yields these prosocial effects.

Read or skip? Probably skip. But keep the citation handy for approaching community partners to extend reach, and for grant proposals that focus on community and/or impact. The article is short, and most of the method and results sections can be skipped … if you want to quote from it in a grant, head to the summary at the end.

Why I picked it up: In my research, I am seeing a high degree of correlation between avid museum-going and community engagement. That is, people who go to museums regularly tend to be more deeply connected with, concerned about, interested in, and involved with their community.

So learning more about attachment to place (or, as I'm reading it, community), makes sense. What are the theoretical underpinnings of place attachment?

Six interesting concepts:

1 - Relationship with community is much like an interpersonal relationship: the more supportive it is, the tighter the bond. Thus, the more a community supports its people, the more people are closely connected to that community (Scannell and Gifford).

My response: so the more you do to support your community, the more your community will value your museum. (This seems obvious!)

2 - Having a strong connection with place is associated with greater well-being (Gustafson).

My response: likely because of the social engagement aspects. This seems like fertile ground for museums.

3 - Interest in the past is a better predictor of active attachment to a place than length of residence … and mobile individuals who connect with their communities often use history to jumpstart that connection (Lewicka).

My response: history museums take note! You can do something with this!

4 - Concept #3 may be because while some long-term residents are "rooted in place" by choice, and very active/attached, more long-term residents are "tied to place" by default, with low levels of engagement (Gustafson).

My response: I've seen this in my data as well, and since many museum-goers tend to be interested in the past, my data thus suggests that museum-going is a better predictor of active attachment than length of residence.

My response: Interesting. When I ask museum-goers about the value of museums in their life, they speak in emotional ways about memory, knowledge, and understanding. And museums are protectors and preservers. So the language here is consistent with the language of museums … at least among avid museum-goers.

6 - "At the heart of any attachment is a story" (Rishbeth).

My response:Of course. That's why I see museum-goers bring their own stories to meaningful museum experiences, or responding to the stories museums tell. As those stories intersect, that develops another story of the experience itself. Rishbeth talks about these three types of stories in her introduction, and I see them in my data as well.

Read or skip? If your job is community engagement, or it is a concerted focus of your work, you should pick it up. In particular, pay attention to the first five chapters, as well as chapters 8 and 12. Those are where I found the most food for thought.

Otherwise, skip. While I am finding the theory very helpful for supporting the trends I see in my research from the past year, for most museum professionals, this isn't as necessary on a day-to-day basis. As I look at the intersection of museums and civic engagement more closely, you'll likely see me refer to this volume again on The Data Museum in the coming months, so I have it covered for you.

Why I picked it up: It is a rigorous look, on a neighborhood basis, to determine if the presence of culture within a neighborhood enhances social wellbeing and neighborhood health. It's all about impact! Of course I picked it up!

What the researchers were looking for: Two key questions shaped their research:1. "What aspects of the city's neighborhood ecology are associated with concentrations of cultural resources," and2. "How is the presence of cultural resources, in turn, related to other aspects of social wellbeing?"

Two concepts come out of this that need examining:

Social Wellbeing. Looking beyond "narrow economic standards" of poverty and income to include "security, health, education, social connection," etc. As Harvard professor Amartya Sen says, it is "the freedom to lead lives they have reason to value." There are ten dimensions of social wellbeing they identified:

Economic wellbeing

Housing burden

Ethnic and economic diversity

Health access

Health

School effectiveness

Security

Environmental amenities

Social connection

Cultural assets

Neighborhood ecology. The idea that everything is connected as part of a broader "neighborhood cultural ecosystem." This implies that arts and culture are a part of that ecosystem, and contribute to the health of a neighborhood's ecology, but acknowledges that the ecology approach makes it difficult to exactly measure any one factor's impact.

The researchers note early that the ecology of a neighborhood "exerts a powerful effect on the wellbeing of its residents," especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods. This implies an understanding that an individual's social wellbeing is influenced by a neighborhood's ecology, but also that a neighborhood's ecology is healthier when its individuals have a higher degree of social wellbeing. The two things are closely intertwined and highly reliant on each other.

What they found: Economic standing, race, and ethnicity are the most significant influences on social wellbeing, with low-income neighborhoods, and those with higher percentages of African American or Hispanic residents, having lower social wellbeing and poorer neighborhood ecologies. Economic wellbeing was, overall, the strongest variable towards social wellbeing as it affects a number of other measures in many ways.

But when other factors are controlled for, culture appears to have a positive impact on neighborhood health, particularly in low-income neighborhoods. For example, low income neighborhoods with relatively high cultural amenities also had lower levels of obesity, serious crime, and investigations of child abuse, and increased rates of children scoring higher on standardized tests. There was also "spillover," in that residents in those neighborhoods that don't participate in culture still benefited.

But does culture itself increase social wellbeing? Their ultimate answer was "yes, but …" with notes about methodological challenges. Point is, they rigorously used the best data available, but that doesn't mean data collection across all potential variables couldn't be improved. And for these reasons, they say that culture predicts wellbeing, but they cannot say that culture causes it. Healthier neighborhood ecosystems, which include access to culture, have greater social wellbeing because those neighborhoods have more opportunities for social connection … and culture supports that rather well.

So while as a matter of policy it makes sense to focus on economic wellbeing to address social wellbeing challenges, there is also room for what are likely cost-effective programs that may not directly address economic wellbeing, but have meaningful, and even outsized, impact when it comes to individual social wellbeing and the health of neighborhood ecologies. This can include things like planting trees, greater access to prenatal care, and, of course, culture.

My take: What I find most interesting is the interplay between individual social wellbeing and a neighborhood's ecology. I like how they framed it that way, as it gives me a framework for trends I see in my data as well.

As you will see in the coming months, as I release major research on The Data Museum, individuals who are highly connected to, and engaged, with their community tend to be museum-goers and cultural consumers. Thus, we could reason that if we can boost cultural engagement through museums, those new audiences may be open to a greater degree of connection to, and engagement with, their community, thus improving a community's ecology as well asincreasing individual social wellbeing.

And, indeed, my research indicates there is a desire for more community connection among some segments of the population that do not visit museums regularly (or, perhaps, at all). Work can be done here. Really good work. And by increasing access to all ten of the dimensions of social wellbeing, including culture, the long-term outcomes can be tremendous.

The researchers also mentioned a tension between the intrinsic value of culture and its "instrumental influence on other social factors." I have to confess, I have always been thoroughly perplexed by this. One doesn't preclude the other. We can value culture for its own sake while recognizing its broader impact. Just because we find a place of natural beauty that is good for our souls doesn't mean that we can't recognize that that place also has positive instrumental influences on us and our society. So what is culture's problem with this? And, pragmatically, let's be honest. There are some individuals who value that broader impact more than intrinsic one, especially in positions of influence. Fine. Let's find evidence of that broader, more instrumental impact, and share it.

Implications for museums: The researchers didn't discuss museums specifically, but the implication is that if museums want to deliver true, lasting impact, they should consider it via:

Individual social wellbeing. On an individual level, how do they make a difference in lives? How do they do this through education and social interaction? Through identity?

Neighborhood ecology. As a place of social interaction, education, and identity, how do they boost the health of a community?

Neither of these in any way take away from our core missions of art, history, or science (or some mix thereof), but instead values what those things accomplish in individuals and neighborhoods … when they are done well.

But there is, buried in the report, a call to action. They note that since culture is spread unevenly, with lower-income neighborhoods having fewer resources, it means that "privilege [is] generating more privilege" in wealthier ones. A case right there to make our work more accessible in neighborhoods that are under-served, and delivering out-sized impact when we do so. And let's be practical about it and go to where they are (and not expect them to come to us).

Read or skip? This research is important, so yes, you should read their summary, which gives you their overview in six pages. Feel free to skip the longer report unless you have a particular reason to dig in.

A note on their methodology: The project had three phases:

Documenting "cultural ecosystems" on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis in New York City

Rigorously assessing other factors that contribute to social wellbeing

Examining how culture affects wellbeing on a grassroots, neighborhood level, including controlling for SES (socio-economic status)

I read through their methodology thoroughly. Every research project, even well-funded ones, runs into roadblocks. This one did too. The authors shared their rationale for how they addressed data gaps and other challenges, and they pointed out "one cannot collect data that do not exist." Overall, their methodology seemed entirely reasonable to me, though I have some questions about their cultural participation assumptions (I think their method likely undercounted participation). No red flags.

I picked it up because I thought it would be about economic impact and the creative sector. It wasn't.

Then, the first half (the findings), had me prepared to write a review all about, essentially, the death of the chamber of commerce (and implications for communities and even museums, if you bear with me).

But then the second half (case studies) focused on two museum-type organizations that were doing great community work, really serving as creative hubs and putting the findings into practice.

I'm not sure I can totally reconcile the two, as my responses are so different. But here goes.

Note: this report focuses on Creative Hubs in the United Kingdom.

Part 1: The Findings

Fundamentally, how do communities support creativity, individual entrepreneurship, and thinking? How do they provide infrastructure, resources, nuts-and-bolts advice, and places for what the authors called "structured serendipity" and "curating happenstance" (two phrases I love, by the way; I sometimes see those ideas coming from museum-goers in my research as well).

This report focused on "creative hubs" as relatively new, loose organizations that address those needs, as places that bring together "diverse talents, disciplines, and skills to intensify innovation … places that provide a space for work, participation, and consumption" (p. 7). They are physical places and/or networks, but essentially small communities that incubate small businesses, help grow creative industries, and make places better.

In the UK, three emerging factors contributed to the development of hubs:

Labor market shifts towards sole proprietorships … or what we might term free-lancers (even, to some extent, the gig economy)

Persistent growth in culture and creative industries (backed up by UK data)

Each new hub responding to local conditions, making each unique, developed in practice (and thus not necessarily planned); there is no one model hub

For a hub to succeed, however, it has to become embeddedin local culture, and sustained by mutual respect with their audiences as well asa mutual relationship. That is, individuals benefit from, participate, and also contribute to them. They also have to be generally flexible, loose organizations that meet rather wide-ranging needs (as their definition conveys).

As I read these findings, however, I kept thinking about chambers of commerce. In a way, these creative hubs are becoming a nimble, flexible, relevant 21st-century chamber of commerce. Let me explain (and I'll bring in a museum hook).

When I worked within museums, I found the local chamber of commerce to be only somewhat useful. In the 11+ years I've been an audience researcher, I have found them completely irrelevant. Local chambers have failed me … and I suspect a lot of others. They feel creaky and stuck in the 80s, to be honest. Yet the creative hubs described in this report are very appealing to me.

So if I were to create the 21st-century chamber of commerce, it would actually look a lot like these creative hubs. Dynamic co-working spaces with innovative programs to stimulate the mind, creativity, and innovation. Maker spaces and pots of tea. Meaningful social programming that helps me, and others, tackle community issues. Practical services that help me deal with the nuts-and-bolts of running my practice, so I can focus on the things that matter. I don't want to go to a "mixer" to network, but I do want to be in a mutually supportive environment. And I suspect there is a growing need for that environment that goes right back to those labor market and industry shifts the UK, and the US, is experiencing.

I also think museums can be a vital part of new creative hubs in the US. The intellectual stimulation, the creative and technical inspiration, are all things that museums can excel at. Additionally, my data and research keeps reinforcing that community engagement and museums are deeply intertwined, so these creative hubs can be beneficial to museums. And museums can better support their community. And museums can actually be these creative hubs.

Which brings me to the case studies.

Part 2: The Case Studies

After I read the findings part of this report, I was tempted to just barely scan the case studies and set the report aside.

That didn't happen.

The first main case study was for the Site Gallery in Sheffield. And to be honest, the programming is what I would expect of any community-focused art museum, from classes to exhibits to lectures to teen programs (such as those that Mary Ellen Munley has studied in her excellent Room to Rise).

What was most interesting, however, was seeing its programming discussed by non-museum researchers, using language that clearly values the types of outcomes and impacts that I hear from museum-goers in my work. The ability of museums (in this case, art) to connect. Transform. Relax. Escape. Create. A potent reminder that these are important outcomes that we need to try to measure, even when it's hard. And that these outcomes matter.

For the Site Gallery, it meant deep integration with their community: Sheffield. Nimble, savvy thinking, and responding to needs … in ways onlythey could. The story was similar for Birmingham Open Media. Interestingly, however, the third case study, FuseBox in Brighton, was more of the new chamber of commerce model that the first part of the report had me envisioning.

Read or skip? This is actually hard to answer. Reading the findings, I would have said a "skip, I've got this covered for you." But I did an about-face when two of the three main case studies described organizations that look a lot like art museums (and, to be honest, there is no reason a science center or history museum couldn't do likewise).

So if your community is crying out for a creative hub, and you want to deeply integrate your museum in your community … read this. It could give you the inspiration to pursue this for your community, in ways that your community needs and that further your missions.

If all of this sounds nice, but nothing else. Then skip. It isn't for you and your museum. ​

Full citation: "Creative Hubs: Understanding the New Economy." Research report published by the British Council and City University of London. Released 2016.Have a suggestion for my reading list? Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: Paying for news. What on earth does that have to do with museums? And membership? Bear with me. Since museum members often purchase membership for the benefits … the product … it is a lot like purchasing a subscription. If the content isn't there, they won't join or renew. I suspect there may be takeaways for museum membership programs. So I dug into the American Press Institute's report.

Note: I did not focus on where they go to find news (especially the digital vs. print argument), but instead on why people do (or do not) commit to a subscription.

What you need to know: News subscribers are paying for (and renewing for) quality content. Poor content = low retention rates. Thus, if your museum membership program has low retention rates, the problem is likely your content, not your membership program. (Or, if a children's museum, they really did age out … but children's museums should still be seeing renewals while children are young.)

The Nitty Gritty: First, take these numbers with a grain of salt, as I think they skew rather high (for why, see below for my rambling note on data source/methodology). That being said …

The researchers divided their sample into three rough categories:

Subscribers (53% of adults)

News "seekers" (24% of adults)

News "bumpers" (23% of adults; that is, people who "bump" into the news)

It doesn't appear that this research had a fourth category, those that just don't engage with/care about the news at all. Not even as "bumpers."

While rates of museum membership and visitation are nothing like this, I think we can draw conclusions if we think of members as "subscribers," casual visitors as "news seekers," and non-visitors as "bumpers." For this purpose, however, we should also mentally think of that potential fourth category, perhaps the "disengaged," which would likely be a third-to-half of a sample and include individuals who just never think about museums at all. (Sorry to discourage you, but better to be realistic.)

First, the subscribers. What motivates them? Primarily, a belief that the news is important to be an informed, better citizen. These words, as well as their cousin "knowledgeable," come up a fair amount in my research when I ask museum-goers why they visit museums. So a parallel is there (even if more people find the news more useful to this outcome than museums).

Additionally, a fair number of news subscribers want to support quality journalism … particularly younger adults as a third of subscribers under 50 cited this (versus only a quarter of those 50 or older).

When it comes to what news organizations they support, there are three reasons (in descending order):

Content: the publication excels in their coverage

Friends and family subscribe

A response to discount promotions

I suspect it is the same for museum members. If the content the museum is sharing doesn't engage them (or their children), it doesn't matter who else joins or what promotions are being offered. The content has to be there.

Essentially confirming the last point, they found that the majority of subscribers felt that the news was a good value, and that "the value people put on the news they pay for is a reflection of attitude, not other attributes." I agree, and I suspect museum members do too … dropping membership when it is no longer producing that same value for them or their families.

And then there is sharing the news. This was interesting.

Younger adults subscribers are more likely to feel that being informed gives them something to discuss with family and friends, both in real life and on social media. To be honest, aside from the in-museum experience, we don't spend a whole lot of time focusing on this in museums. How do museum visitors talk about their visits with others in their daily lives?

For this study, however, the research shed more light on social media patterns. News subscribers (of all ages) are more likely to share news content. This makes sense on a few levels:

By paying, they likely feel a greater sense of ownership

Since the news is more important to them, it likely is more important to their friends/family, so they feel more confidence that others wish to see those stories

Payers are more likely to find news sources very or completely reliable than non-payers

They went on to say:

"So contrary to discounting social media as part of a subscription strategy, the opposite may be true. Engaging with one’s most loyal consumers on social media, the data suggests, is an important way of expanding one’s audience by having loyal users share and endorse a publisher’s content. In effect, publications should work hard to empower their subscribers on social media to become their ambassadors and marketers."

I suspect the above is true for museum members (which suggests prioritizing content-driven social media in shareable ways is a good priority to have … but you probably already knew that).

Now, the non-subscribers. Bottom line, the news isn't as important to them. Some seek out free sources (and don't feel a need to pay because they can find enough for free to suit their needs). Others don't seek it out at all (and I think this is a bigger percentage of the population than the research suggests, see my rambling note on data source/methodology for why).

To some degree, age also matters, with non-subscribers 18 - 34 twice as likely as those 65 and older to say they are not interested in the news (I wouldn't have categorized these as "bumpers," but as the "disengaged").

But those "bumpers …." what does interest them? My read of the data is that content that is about them. They are far less interested in national or international news, but compared with news seekers they are more interested in news about their hobbies, lifestyle, and interests. A representation of narrower, more personal interests that I see in my research as well, especially in terms of more extrinsic learning motivations and lower levels of engagement with the world among those who don't visit museums at all (or only very rarely). Reaching them, when it comes to the news, seems to be primarily by word-of-mouth, and I bet it is no different when it comes to museums and those with limited intrinsic motivations to learn.

Implications: The report makes the case for specialization and expertise. That providing great content is key to engaging the audience … and making them subscribers. This brings a few thoughts to mind:

The focus on content is something museums need to take to heart. If your return visitation and/or membership numbers are lagging, the problem is likely your content … not your membership program itself.

Reports of the death of expertise may be overblown. While there is merit to the worries about who takes fake news seriously, a sizable part of the population does still care about expertise. Some of them are even willing to pay for it. (Additionally, only a small percentage of non-payers cited lack of trust as a reason for not subscribing.) I suspect that it isn't that more people have less trust in expertise than in the past, but that not many people cared in the first place (and now we know). My concern? The part of the population that values expertise may be smaller than we would like … and reaching those that don't care will continue to be a problem, both for news organizations and for museums.

And finally, this research fits in rather nicely to new models I am creating about intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivations for learning, and how that relates to engagement with the broader world and museum-going. More on that will be released over the coming months on The Data Museum.

Read or skip? Skip. I covered what you need.

A rambling note on data source/methodology: API partnered with the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. A very reputable source for research and top-notch methodology.

That being said, there are two things to keep in mind.

False positives. In this case, that's when people over-report news engagement because they want to present a more positive image than reality supports. For example, someone who was once a news subscriber might report that they are currently a subscriber. Or someone who sees occasional news stories in their Facebook feed might report that they are a news "seeker," even though their actual behavior is more like a "bumper." And then there are those who really don't pay attention at all unless it is completely unavoidable. Which brings me to my second point.

Almost all national surveys have what I call a "blind spot:" a good-sized chunk of individuals that surveys never reach. (I'd guess 25 - 35% of the population. But that's a guess, mind you.) These individuals don't carefully look at their mail (and direct mail surveys), don't respond to random-dial surveys, and don't come across online intercept surveys. And these individuals are often of lower socio-economic status (SES) and/or educational attainment. Even when surveys weight results by SES and educational attainment, it means they are weighting it with individuals that a survey reached AND were willing to complete the survey. That doesn't necessarily make them representative of that demographic segment. So with the exception of the US Census, take all national surveys,including mine, with a grain of salt. It probably skews towards a more engaged population than exists in real life.